• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Federal judge blocks Trump from using Defense funds for parts of border wall

Cardinal

Cardinal

Respected On All Sides
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 20, 2008
Messages
106,811
Reaction score
98,809
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Trump hasn't been doing too well in the courts lately, though I expect his string of losses will eventually slow down as more of his own appointees are able to take on cases that concern him.

At the heart of the ruling is the argument that the President can't simply divert money from somewhere else just because Congress denied him funding for his preferred thing, because to go down that specific route rejects the concept of separation of powers.

A federal judge on Friday night blocked President Donald Trump from tapping into Defense Department funds to build parts of his US-Mexico border wall.

In a 56-page ruling, Judge Haywood Gilliam of the Northern District of California blocked the administration from moving forward with specific projects in Texas and Arizona, saying Trump couldn't disburse the funds without congressional approval. The lawsuit that prompted the ruling was filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the plaintiffs, the Sierra Club and Southern Border Communities Coalition.

Although Friday's ruling does not prevent the Trump administration from using funds from other sources to build the projects, it's a setback for the President on a signature agenda item that has consistently been thwarted by Democrats in Congress. Construction on the projects affected by the ruling could have begun as early as Saturday, according to the ruling.
Click to expand...

Federal judge blocks Trump from using Defense funds for parts of border wall - CNNPolitics

I also feel compelled to repeat the obvious lest it goes down everybody's memory holes: Trump's 2016 platform was specifically that Mexico would pay for the wall. Since his revised platform is that Americans will pay for it, then he can campaign on that in 2020. If Americans agree then they can give him a second term and the Congress to sign onto it.
 
Last edited:
Northern District of California! :lamo
 
Crystal said:
Northern District of California! :lamo
Click to expand...

I hate having to be that guy, but I guess I'm going to need somebody to explain the joke to me.
 
Cardinal said:
I hate having to be that guy, but I guess I'm going to need somebody to explain the joke to me.
Click to expand...
She thinks the judges ruling is illegitimate on the basis that the court resides in California.

Yes, that's it.
 
yet another judge that doesn't know where his limited powers are.
i wish judges would actually follow the law instead of making **** up.
they do not have the power to create law only uphold existing law.

This judge is 100% wrong.

Trump can disperse the funds as congress has already approved them.
he doesn't need congressional approval in an emergency.
 
ludin said:
yet another judge that doesn't know where his limited powers are.
i wish judges would actually follow the law instead of making **** up.
they do not have the power to create law only uphold existing law.

This judge is 100% wrong.

Trump can disperse the funds as congress has already approved them.
he doesn't need congressional approval in an emergency.
Click to expand...

If the President can disperse the money however he sees fit, then there's no point in having a House to create spending bills, because the President could then just disperse the money directly from the treasury.

Now, if....and this is a big "if"...you're not comfortable with the idea of the President being a despot, then you can probably see the problem with that. If you don't see a problem with that, then you either don't have a problem with a despot as President, or you're unfamiliar with why the founding fathers created a separation of powers, or the fact that the House is the entity that creates the budget is pretty specifically in the Constitution:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7
 
Last edited:
Cardinal said:
If the President can disperse the money however he sees fit, then there's no point in having a House to create spending bills, because the President could then just disperse the money directly from the treasury.
Click to expand...

Your made up arguments do not work here. no one said the president can do that. nor did the president do that. so why are you being dishonest?

Now, if....and this is a big "if"...you're not comfortable with the idea of the President being a despot, then you can probably see the problem with that. If you don't see a problem with that, then you either don't have a problem with a despot as President, or you're unfamiliar with why the founding fathers created a separation of powers, or the fact that the House is the entity that creates the budget is pretty specifically in the Constitution:
Click to expand...

it would help if you knew what you were talking about but since you have no clue what you are talking about you can't have
this conversation. no one has said anything about their not being the separation of powers.
i am a firm believer in the separation of powers and the constitution you should try it sometime.

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7
Click to expand...

Good thing none of that was done so you shouldn't have an issue.
 
A federal judge just declared himself Commander In Chief of the U.S. military on behalf of invading foreign civilian armies.

More and more federal judges are nothing but self declared tyrants spitting on the BIll Of Rights and US Constitution.

If this were WW2, federal judges would have blocked the D-Invasion and enjoined dropping the atom bombs that ended the war. There are few Democrats left who are not totally determined to burn the US Bill Of Rights and Constitution.
 
ludin said:
Your made up arguments do not work here. no one said the president can do that. nor did the president do that. so why are you being dishonest?



it would help if you knew what you were talking about but since you have no clue what you are talking about you can't have
this conversation. no one has said anything about their not being the separation of powers.
i am a firm believer in the separation of powers and the constitution you should try it sometime.



Good thing none of that was done so you shouldn't have an issue.
Click to expand...

How is that not what Trump is attempting to do?
 
Cardinal said:
How is that not what Trump is attempting to do?
Click to expand...

show me where he spent money that was not already appropriated by congress?
that is how the emergency works.
 
Cardinal said:
If the President can disperse the money however he sees fit, then there's no point in having a House to create spending bills, because the President could then just disperse the money directly from the treasury.

Now, if....and this is a big "if"...you're not comfortable with the idea of the President being a despot, then you can probably see the problem with that. If you don't see a problem with that, then you either don't have a problem with a despot as President, or you're unfamiliar with why the founding fathers created a separation of powers, or the fact that the House is the entity that creates the budget is pretty specifically in the Constitution:

“All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 7, clause 1

“No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.”
— U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 9, clause 7
Click to expand...

Lying is the #1 Democratic tactic. EVERY claim of your message is absolutely false then the sections of the US Constitution you cite are 100% irrelevant.

President Trump is not spending $1 not appropriated by Congress to the US military and Pentagon, for which HOW to conduct the military and what the military is ordered to do then is entirely up to the President as Commander In Chief.

I find no Congressional acts specifically authorizing our troops to have bullets or helmets either. In your logic, any dollar spent for any weapons, ammo or anything else of the military not specified by Congress is ILLEGAL and in violation of the Constitution's sections you required.
 
ludin said:
show me where he spent money that was not already appropriated by congress?
that is how the emergency works.
Click to expand...

It's the specifically the House which creates spending bills in order to determine how revenue that's been raised is to be distributed. If that was not the House's job, then their part in this would be irrelevant, Trump could skip the middle man and go directly to the Treasury.

As for the President's ability to direct funds according via declaration of emergency, the judge determined, quite accurately, that Trump was abusing his power by declaring an emergency solely because the House didn't give him the funding he wanted for his pet project. If Presidents could do that at will, then again, the House's part in creating spending bills would be irrelevant, and Trump could skip the middle man and go directly to the Treasury.
 
You know it’s pretty dumb that we’re fighting over a better way to enter into the country. What next are you going protest that TSA is a waste of your time? You know I’m sick and tired of hearing about this stupid boarder. You know the democrats are scared to lose. You are going to hear about it more because the democrats are hoping that they have enough votes
 
ludin said:
yet another judge that doesn't know where his limited powers are.
i wish judges would actually follow the law instead of making **** up.
they do not have the power to create law only uphold existing law.

This judge is 100% wrong.

Trump can disperse the funds as congress has already approved them.
he doesn't need congressional approval in an emergency.
Click to expand...
As a conservative, you’re a strict constitutionalists. Therefore, you know and defend the constitutional basis that Congress decides where money is spent. Therefore, the judge WAS following the law.

As Cardinal said, if the president can move money to areas not approved by Congress, the federal budget need only be one line item.
 
Cardinal said:
It's the specifically the House which creates spending bills in order to determine how revenue that's been raised is to be distributed. If that was not the House's job, then their part in this would be irrelevant, Trump could skip the middle man and go directly to the Treasury.
Click to expand...

please show me where trump is spending money not already appropriated by congress.
since you know or think you know how this works you should be able to show me.

the emergency allows the president to divert already appropriated funds.
so please show us where he is diverting funds that congress hasn't appropriated.

President Trump May Be On Solid Legal Ground Declaring An Emergency At The Border

According to one statute, for example, in an emergency, the president is allowed to divert money already authorized by Congress to be spent by the Defense Department on other military items to military construction projects.

so since you are supposed to know all about this why do you keep arguing something no one else is?
ol yea you can't be honest.

so please show us where the president is spending money not already authorized.
 
Essentially for the judge's reasoning in the order, that Federal judge has ordered the virtual total and immediately dismantling and elimination of every branch of the American military worldwide and within the USA as Congress has authorized no EXACT spending for nearly anything money is spend on for the military or the Pentagon.

Since NOTHING is more aid and comfort to our enemies than this, including on behalf of enemies declared military enemies that we are in direct war with by Congress, that federal judge has committed the greatest act of treason possible against the USA.

Federal law not only authorizes investigation, arrest and prosecution by the FBI and DOJ, but the Patriot Act authorizes the President to have that Federal judge immediately arrested and held at any undisclosed location denied any communications and with no bail, no hearing and no trial indefinitely.

I generally oppose waterboarding, for this level of treason it would seem an appropriate part of intense interrogation of the #1 wannabe traitor in our country's history.
 
Last edited:
ludin said:
please show me where trump is spending money not already appropriated by congress.
since you know or think you know how this works you should be able to show me.

the emergency allows the president to divert already appropriated funds.
so please show us where he is diverting funds that congress hasn't appropriated.

President Trump May Be On Solid Legal Ground Declaring An Emergency At The Border

According to one statute, for example, in an emergency, the president is allowed to divert money already authorized by Congress to be spent by the Defense Department on other military items to military construction projects.

so since you are supposed to know all about this why do you keep arguing something no one else is?
ol yea you can't be honest.

so please show us where the president is spending money not already authorized.
Click to expand...

If the President can appropriate the money for whichever pet project he wants, then why would the House even exist as a body for creating spending bills?
 
MTAtech said:
As a conservative, you’re a strict constitutionalists. Therefore, you know and defend the constitutional basis that Congress decides where money is spent. Therefore, the judge WAS following the law.
Click to expand...

No he wasn't.

the emergency allows thee president to distribute funds already allocated.
he could very much say the wall is a military construction project.

According to one statute, for example, in an emergency, the president is allowed to divert money already authorized by Congress to be spent by the Defense Department on other military items to military construction projects.

President will order the military to have the wall built. The interstate highway system was authorized as a requirement of national defense, after all....

so no he wasn't. he was making up his own law.
in order to stop this he would have to rule that the emergency is not an emergency.

he would then have to rationalize how allowing the flow of illegals, drug dealers, and sex traffickers to flow over our border is
not a national security which is something he can't do.
 
MTAtech said:
As a conservative, you’re a strict constitutionalists. Therefore, you know and defend the constitutional basis that Congress decides where money is spent. Therefore, the judge WAS following the law.

As Cardinal said, if the president can move money to areas not approved by Congress, the federal budget need only be one line item.
Click to expand...

You're talking to the new-conservatives, ones that believe in the Constitution and rule of law when it suits them otherwise they are quick to ignore it . Personally I think that a new descriptor needs to be applied to the right, because conservative is completely inaccurate as to who they are these days. Ronald Regan would be appaled at them calling themselves conservatives or Republicans.
 
Cardinal said:
If the President can appropriate the money for whichever pet project he wants, then why would the House even exist as a body for creating spending bills?
Click to expand...

arguing something not argued.
 
Casper said:
Your talking to the new-conservatives, once that believe in the Constitution and rule of law when it suits them otherwise they are quick to ignore it . Personally I think that a new descriptor needs to be applied to the right, because conservative is completely inaccurate as to who they are these days. Ronald Regan would be appaled at them calling themselves conservatives or Republicans.
Click to expand...

nope i firmly still hold with reagan on issues.
know what you are talkking about before making inaccurate projects.
 
ludin said:
arguing something not argued.
Click to expand...

Except that is the inevitable ramification of your position. If the President can appropriate the money for whichever pet project he wants by simply declaring "national emergency!" then the House as a body for creating spending bills is moot.
 
Cardinal said:
Except that is the inevitable ramification of your position. If the President can appropriate the money for whichever pet project he wants by simply declaring "national emergency!" then the House as a body for creating spending bills is moot.
Click to expand...

please show me where i said that the president can appropriate money.
i will be waiting.

you are arguing something that hasn't been argued.
 
Cardinal said:
If the President can appropriate the money for whichever pet project he wants, then why would the House even exist as a body for creating spending bills?
Click to expand...

That is irrelevant as Congress already authorized the money to the military and Pentagon.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom